Lockheed ASTOVL, JAST, JSF projects

[sferrin]

Unfortunately, Skunk Works destroyed the documentation for the classified GhostHawk concept after the DARPA-sponsored program terminated. When the US Marine Corps and US Air Force launched the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program a few years later, Skunk Works was forced design a whole new airframe.

SO, anytime a DARPA funded program of a new classified tech demonstrator gets concluded, all the related work and materials go *poof*?
Both the taxpayer and the Aerospace fan in me are pretty appalled by this.

From a technological evolution point of view I find this pretty horrific as well. Patent b.s. aside, no man makes great technological strides without standing on the shoulders of those before him. We cant just go around wiping out the shoulders..... :'(

Yeah that does seem pretty @#$%%!! stupid given that you just KNOW someone is going to come by later and try that idea again because they don't know that it's a proven failure.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This is about as close to the actual configuration as the public ATF renderings were to the YF-22.

Well, you have to consider that this design study was just for a stealthy STOVL fighter. It was designed before the JSF requirements were ever released, IIRC. I also believe it was the Navy requirement which forced them to go from a canard to a conventional tail when they began designing for the JSF program.

I think Dan was saying that the picture shown is not an accurate depiction of the Ghost Hawk.

 

[Sundog]

I think Dan was saying that the picture shown is not an accurate depiction of the Ghost Hawk.

Oh, OK, thanks!

 

[Ian33]

This is about as close to the actual configuration as the public ATF renderings were to the YF-22.

I plead ignorance. I just read it and thought I'd show a bit of interest - Thanks for the correction.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

How did the Boeing JSF design (X-32) get assigned the same X-plane number as the Lockheed JAST/ASTOVL design? Or was the Lockheed "X-32" a company designation?

 

[sublight]

Can anybody cite the rules which DARPA operates by that gives them the authority to have all materials for a project destroyed? Surely there is some incredible red tape somewhere in our bureaucracy that prohibits them from doing this?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Perhaps it was the red tape that actually got the project materials destroyed.

 

[flateric]

grab it while it's there

Inventing the Joint Strike Fighter
Dr. Paul Bevilaqua, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works

Welcome - Meyer Institute - Naval Postgraduate School

www.nps.edu

 

[sublight]

This is just pondering on my part, but does the name "GhostHawk" imply that it was a visual stealth platform and that is why DARPA requested Skunk Works destroy the documentation for said classified program?

 

[AeroFranz]

grab it while it's there

Inventing the Joint Strike Fighter
Dr. Paul Bevilaqua, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works

Welcome - Meyer Institute - Naval Postgraduate School

www.nps.edu

sweet. thanks Gregory.

 

[sublight]

grab it while it's there

Inventing the Joint Strike Fighter
Dr. Paul Bevilaqua, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf

Thank you!

However, every time the document pretends the JSF is a viable A-10 replacement I throw up just a little bit in my mouth.... ;D

 

[robunos]

XLNT, most interesting, I see from page 36,
that the JSF is referred to as the 'X-35 Musketeer',
that's a new one on me...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Musketeer - as in 'one for all and all for one'.

Paul Bevilaqua was using this name in 2003 when he taught on a V/STOL design course I was on - I think it was his preferred name for the aircraft, and maybe used informally inside LM at the time.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Heh. Was the "What you see, is what you get!" slide taking a shot at the looks of the Boeing X-32?

 

[robunos]

Musketeer - as in 'one for all and all for one'.

I geddit now.... ;D


cheers,
Robin.

 

[LowObservable]

The X-32 confusion: The designation X-32 was assigned to the DARPA CALF program before JSF was in being. I don't think DARPA had any hope of being able to flight test more than one concept, so the plan was to test Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) versions of three designs (they started with Lockheed and Macs, then Boeing came in) and then downselect. In this stage, I believe that the three designs were known as Boeing X-32A, Lockheed X-32B and Macs X-32C (alphabetical order). Boeing and Lockheed tested LSPMs but the Macs gas-driven liftfan version was never tested, since Macs abandoned the GDLF before that happened.

The X-32 designation was continued into the JSF program and went to Boeing (alpha order again). In the meantime, X-33 and X-34 had been assigned to NASA, so LockMart's design became X-35... and as we all know the SDD aircraft became F-35 because of a misunderstanding in a press conference.

 

[Stargazer]

XLNT, most interesting, I see from page 36,
that the JSF is referred to as the 'X-35 Musketeer',
that's a new one on me...

I thought exactly the same thing when I reached that page... Amazing we never heard it before! Another "lost" company name that the armed forces did not want...

Musketeer - as in 'one for all and all for one'.

Makes a lot of sense, actually!

I think it was his preferred name for the aircraft, and maybe used informally inside LM at the time.

I can't conceive of an employee, be it an isolated engineer or a PR guy, using a name like that just because he likes it, without there being some company endorsement for it at some point...

Heh. Was the "What you see, is what you get!" slide taking a shot at the looks of the Boeing X-32?

Again, my thoughts exactly... sort of: "Look, ugly failed and handsome won!"

The X-32 confusion: The designation X-32 was assigned to the DARPA CALF program before JSF was in being. I don't think DARPA had any hope of being able to flight test more than one concept, so the plan was to test Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) versions of three designs (they started with Lockheed and Macs, then Boeing came in) and then downselect. In this stage, I believe that the three designs were known as Boeing X-32A, Lockheed X-32B and Macs X-32C (alphabetical order). Boeing and Lockheed tested LSPMs but the Macs gas-driven liftfan version was never tested, since Macs abandoned the GDLF before that happened.

The X-32 designation was continued into the JSF program and went to Boeing (alpha order again). In the meantime, X-33 and X-34 had been assigned to NASA, so LockMart's design became X-35... and as we all know the SDD aircraft became F-35 because of a misunderstanding in a press conference.

Fascinating and quite logical indeed. Thanks for clarifying this annoying non-sequential allocation.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Lockheed ASTOVL concept.

Source: http://fire.prohosting.com/hud607/uncommon/reference/usa/concepts.html

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Lockheed GhostHawk.

Artist's impression of Lockheed SSF (STOVL Supersonic Fighter) circa 1986. Note that is an original sketch of the F-35 propulsion system.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/photo-evolution-of-the-f-35.html

 

[Triton]

Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

All the discussions for Chengdu J-10/F-10 Aircraft here. Regards.

www.defence.pk

 

[flateric]

<title> | Code One Magazine</title>

www.codeonemagazine.com

The aircraft Lockheed proposed for the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter was called Configuration 100. The delta-canard design had twin vertical tails and a pronounced forebody chine. Trade studies were conducted to refine the design in late 1993. Configuration 140 emerged as a baseline used to build a 92 percent scale powered model. The requirements for testing the model in the NASA Ames 80- by 120-foot wind tunnel called for a safety factor of five times the normal design loads. To meet these requirements, the model was fabricated from sheets of 1/4-inch steel plate. The result, which weighed almost 50,000 pounds, incorporated an F100 engine and a lift fan built from the first stage of an F119 engine. The model was used to test the interaction of the airflow from lift fan and the aft nozzle. The data gathered from this these tests helped Lockheed win the Concept Development phase of the X-35 program.

Photo by Denny Lombard

 

[Matej]

Six high-res pictures of the Lockheed X-32 JAST model are at AILS: http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/ails/?v=thumbs&st=1&so=unsorted&page=1&r=0&qs=JAST&x=0&y=0

 

[Stargazer]

Six high-res pictures of the Lockheed X-32 JAST model are at AILS: http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/ails/?v=thumbs&st=1&so=unsorted&page=1&r=0&qs=JAST&x=0&y=0

Matej, that's X-35, not X-32!

 

[flateric]

that's true - that should become X-32. read the topic carefully, LowObservable had a remarks on this

 

[Matej]

Why do you think that it was not Lockheed X-32 (at the time when the photo was taken)? Lowobservable wrote:

The X-32 confusion: The designation X-32 was assigned to the DARPA CALF program before JSF was in being. I don't think DARPA had any hope of being able to flight test more than one concept, so the plan was to test Large Scale Powered Model (LSPM) versions of three designs (they started with Lockheed and Macs, then Boeing came in) and then downselect. In this stage, I believe that the three designs were known as Boeing X-32A, Lockheed X-32B and Macs X-32C (alphabetical order). Boeing and Lockheed tested LSPMs but the Macs gas-driven liftfan version was never tested, since Macs abandoned the GDLF before that happened.

Captions on the AILS photos are (the first is related to the photo that I posted):

AC95-0154-333
Photographer: Dominic Hart
Date: 02/23/96
CALF/JAST X-32 test program: the LSPM (Large Scale Powered Model), Lockheed's concept for a tri-service aircraft (Air Force, Navy, Marines) CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter) as part of the Department of Defense's Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) is being tested in the 80x120ft w.t. test-930 with rear horizontal stabilizer

Another photo:

AC95-0154-124
Date: 10/19/95
JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) X-32 Test Program: Lockheed ASTOVL / CALF X-32, N-246 Test #930 arrival, unloading and test prep.

So what?

 

[Stargazer]

Don't be upset, Matej. I first thought it was a typo, not thinking of relating the picture to the info that had been discussed further up.
Also, I kind of figured that this early set of designations was strictly theoretical and only given in early papers, never applied officially at all. Was I wrong?
At any rate, if they were used, labeling the picture as plain "X-32" is insufficient, since it should be "X-32B", right? ;-)

 

[Matej]

Okay, lets call it Lockheed LSPM (Large Scale Powered Model) and it will be just fine

 

[Triton]

Names that were under consideration for the F-35 included Lightning II, Spitfire II, Black Mamba, and Piasa. Some of the names that were submitted by US Armed Services and Allies included Mustang II, Scorpion, Phantom III, and Skyruler. Fury was a favorite but rejected because of a possible trademark violation dispute with Chrysler Corporation and its Plymouth Fury automobile manufactured from 1956-1978.

Source:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1821.html

 

[flateric]

One of Lockheed Martin's STOVL Strike Fighter concepts, developed under DARPA program

 

[AeroFranz]

Makes you think of VARIOUS

 

[flateric]

Lockheed 1992 supersonic LO STOVL study

 

[flateric]

Initial Lockheed JAST Concept
thanks to Paralay for finding

 

[dannydale]

Hmm, the JAST reminds me rather strongly of the new J-20 design. I suspect the resemblance runs the other way.

 

[firepilot]

Names that were under consideration for the F-35 included Lightning II, Spitfire II, Black Mamba, and Piasa. Some of the names that were submitted by US Armed Services and Allies included Mustang II, Scorpion, Phantom III, and Skyruler. Fury was a favorite but rejected because of a possible trademark violation dispute with Chrysler Corporation and its Plymouth Fury automobile manufactured from 1956-1978.

Source:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1821.html

Strange, because they USAF still used names like Lancer and Spirit for the B-1 and B-2, both Chrysler Corp names

 

[AeroFranz]

Seriously...by that rationale Plymouth should have been sued by North American, which in turn should have been sued by Hawker (and who knows whom else used the name). I'm not questioning the fact that this actually happened, but this is ridiculous...
Frickin' lawyers... :

 

[Matej]

Initial Lockheed JAST Concept
thanks to Paralay for finding

The cut of this image was also in the Lockheed Skunk Works by Jay Miller (chapter 16 - Future).

 

[Rickshaw]

Seriously...by that rationale Plymouth should have been sued by North American, which in turn should have been sued by Hawker (and who knows whom else used the name). I'm not questioning the fact that this actually happened, but this is ridiculous...
Frickin' lawyers... :

One of the rationales behind calling the F-16 the "Fighting Falcon" was that Dassault had already copyrighted the name "Falcon" for their bizjet.

 

[Matej]

Lockheed? (unknown source)

 

[LowObservable]

Could be - it's got a hint of early F-22 about it.

 

[flateric]

Lockheed? (unknown source)

Lockheed's. From Dan Raymer's site.